provisionally suspended. the supreme constitutional court will address the draft for the palm entry connection, and prepare for the farm entry election. and draft a charter securing the freedom of -- [indiscernible -- having accepted, the egyptian army, the egyptian people, steer away from violence, which will bring about shedding theon and blood of the innocent. the armed forces warned that it will stand up firmly in

cooperation with the interior ministry security personnel, to any act be getting from this based on his responsibility. [indiscernible] formay god save egypt, and the defined people of egypt.

hour. >> george shultz, what are you doing for a living these days? >> i tried to live up for my four great-grandchildren who to me represent the future. and i look at them and i say to

myself what can i do to make the world better for these kids? >> as a distinguished fellow at the hoover institution, what is it that you do? >> well, i work on the problem of nuclear weapons and how to get better control of them. eventually to eliminate them. i work on economic issues. there is a great economics group. i work on energy subjects, working a great deal on that. and i've also been trying to reflect a little bit about my experiences to see if there is anything that can be learned from them. i actually wrote the book to try to do that. >> and that book is called "issues on my mind. secretary shultz, but is the main issue on your mind today? >> the main issue is the united states had a great deal of constructing after world war ii.

in effect we constructed a security and economic commons that served us and everybody well. that is being torn apart right now to the and we have to understand what is happening. and we have to be ready to interact in a constructive way to build a more coherent world than the one that's developed. so i reflect on my experiences, and the but you held up on the different ways which we need to go about them we have some real opportunities in front of us. we have some issues pilat of the things i propose that we talk about are so controversial that nobody even want to hear you talk about them, but anyway, i do. so i enjoy that, so i do it. >> how would you say the world is security lies today as

opposed to when you were the secretary of state from 1980? >> and 1980's when i was the secretary of state, we had the main thread of the soviet union and how you contain that. maybe you remember that from those days. the nuclear cloud was always somewhere. i think that has diminished a great deal in terms of russia. but the threat is more of a greater disbursement of nuclear weapons. it is a proliferation sometimes in the hands that are not deterred a -- detour and the world is falling apart and this is very disturbing i think. >> the rogue states, iran,

potential nuclear power. how should it be handled? >> well, we have said is unacceptable. i remember -- and i use this in my book. when i was a bit in the u.s. marine corps you think you've joined the marines, you haven't to get you only survive but can't if you become a marina. i remember the day the sergeant handled me -- handed me my rifle. he said good friend. and remember one thing. never point this rifle at anybody unless you are willing to pull the trigger. no empty threats. malae told that story to president ronald reagan on occasion and he loved it because we said to ourselves we have to be very careful what we say so people will realize that when we say something, does have a

consequence. and if it isn't going to have a consequence, we don't say at. as with the administration has in mind, i don't know. but they basically said it is unacceptable for iran to get a clear weapons, the option is not i think secretary perry testified it isn't containment. the object is prevention. so i don't know what their strategy is, but it better be tough. >> secretary shultz, what about the super powers that have nuclear weapons, russia, the u.s., china? should there be more talk? should there be less weapons, should they be dismantled? >> one very positive thing has taken place. we have a lot of positive things. but one more recent was about three years ago i guess, living alumni convened a meeting in washington, 40 heads of

government came. and the object was to see how everybody involved can do a better job of controlling the fissile material. that is what it takes to make a bomb. that is the hard part is getting the material. and then there was followed with another one to two years later and i gathered there was another scheduled in amsterdam. more and more heads of government are involved in that and i think that is a very constructive thing and a recent thing that i've written along with it, people live been working with. we say let that morph into kind of a global nuclear enterprise and get the constructive states together to keep working on

these different kind of things that need to be done. there are some between us and russia that need to be done but there are other things, too. >> what about when it co to these states in the 80's you were part of the administration that strategically bombed libya. what about the bombing iran, at least its nuclear facility? >> well, just how you would go about that and how difficult it is, how successful you can be. i have no part of any intelligence accept to see that it's difficult. israelis are worried more than anyone. if the had a nuclear weapon on the end of a ballistic missile, they can do it. so, i think we've learned from reading when somebody like that,

you should take it seriously and believe them. so i think we have to think about forceful means. but i am not in an informed enough position. >> in the issues on my mind, and you write when it comes to terrorism, in this country we$ç must think about the moral$ç$çd stakes involved if we truly$ believe in our space values and way of life, we must be willing to defend them. passive measures are on likely to suffice, the means of more active defense and deterrence must be considered and given the necessary political support. >> well, you say if you have a law enforcement approach you would say okay, let a terrorist act happen. then we find out who did it and try them and a u.s. court and if we make them guilty then they go to jail.

what does that accomplish? uncertain deterrence but and mean time the act has taken place. and a terrorist act like 9/11 can kill a lot of people. so if you know something is coming at you, why not stop it backs and other words, prevention. and we say more -- when i first said that it was controversial but after 9/11 people would say of course. we should try to stop that from happening. so this doctrine is very important and it's become common that we did a great deal in this country and there have been lots of terrorist acts that didn't happen because we come out about their intelligence. >> we're talking with the former

secretary, george shultz about his book "issues on my mind." mr. secretary, what was the favorite job that you ever had? >> well, you say job. that implies something that you do in order to have to get money. now if you say that i've never had a job in my life i've always found things that were interesting and rewarding. if i wound up doing something it wasn't like i would find something else to do. but in government, it's a great privilege and opportunity to serve. i had a succession of jobs. starting with my two and a half years overseas in world war ii. there i was fighting for my country and in the and we were victorious. i didn't have much to do with it

but i served out their. i was on the council of economic advisers. was a great privilege. i remember going down and my office was in the big office but in right next to the white house. used to be called the old state building. anyway, i had an office with a window that looked down on the white house, and my father who died not long after that, he came and went into my office and he's all of you and he said you have arrived. so it was great to work their. and when you are working in the white house you have a view of the whole government. i learned a lot about how you put the statistics together that we talk about all the time. so that was a great experience. then when i was the secretary of labor i knew the subject matter

very well and i knew the department will because we had done things in the candy and the johnson administration that gave me that exposure but i didn't know anything about washington and politics and the press and all of that. so i had a good base of knowledge from which to learn about these things. i was fortunate in persuading and man to come and be the press person. joe had worked to "the new york times" for decades and he was the premier labor reporter and he was a really good. everyone with his stories and his subject and he said he would sign on but he had conditions. i said okay what are your conditions? he said first of all, if i'm going to be the spokesman, i have to know what's going on.

i have to be able to look at the enemy to be a i don't want to be blindsided. if i'm blind sighted, the nine over. i said you can go anywhere you want and anyone would be glad to have you. you know that. what else? he said don't lie. i said come on i don't like. he said are you surprised what happens to people they come down here, get under pressure, the mislead, misleading is as bad as longing for you have to be straight. i said okay he said never had a press conference unless you have some news. i said don't reporters kind of like to salute the round and he said you know they are trying to make a living and the way you make a living as you get a story with your name on that and it gets on the front page of your paper. you pull the news conference and they think this is my story.

if they come and you don't have any news, what's he going to do? his current start asking questions to make you say something stupid and that's the news. he had a whole bunch of things like that. so we learned a lot about the press from joe. sometimes people right things you don't like. on whole if you have a constructive attitude and you help them get the facts straight, you will be much better off in the white house who was the political counselor and relations and he took me under his wing to a certain extent. he had rules. he said never make a promise the most you can deliver on that.

it turns out it's harder because people only deal with you if they have -- trust you and the trust you if you do what you say you are going to do. he said trust is the claim of the realm. so i always tried to remember that. in the labor department i had some -- my first big battle in the congress and i learned about. then i went from there to be the director of the budget. and then you have the whole government in front of you. then i became the treasury secretary. there was a time that we redid the international monetary system. had lots of dealings with people all over the world. and i learned a lot about how to do something internationally.

so there was a great experience for me. it was fun and i enjoyed the people. some of them are still good friends today. but of course when i was the secretary of state the tectonic plates changed. when ronald reagan and i took office the cold war was as cold as it could get and when it was over it was all over with a shouting so there was a huge thing to be involved in and watch untold. >> in your book issues on my mind, you have rules for leadership and a couple of those stifel for the expanded on, the bryce harlow rule. but the first this to be a participant. >> that is what democracy is all about. early on when i was working with him in the primaries ronald reagan gave me a tie and this is democracy isn't a spectator

sport. so be proud of it. be part of the politics but to participant. >> tool number fight, competence is the name of the game in leadership. >> it is a great start. if you are not competent you will be in big trouble. i had a tough experience with that though. i told you when i went to washington as the secretary of labor i was kind of an innocent in politics and i had a bunch of political appointed spots to fill, and i realized you are trained to work with a diverse constituency. so i said i need the best management in this industrial labour relations field that there is. then there was one named jim hudson and i talked to him and

we said we have to have a real labor guy, someone who negotiates and contracts and sells them to the rank and file. so we found a guy who really knows manpower training. we have to get somebody that's worked in the area of how to deal with discrimination in the workplace. so he knows the market. anyway, i get a lot of these people wind up and president nixon thought to that there would show progress in his administration. so he said why don't you bring them to the hotel and we will introduce them to the press. so we have a meeting, it goes well and i interview them to the press. then they ask all kind of questions and was obvious he was a pro.

someone in the back of the room holds his hand up and says are you a democrat or republican? i've never been asked that. he said i'm a democrat. it's a dazzling to read the same month of his hand up and says i'm a democrat. the last one. arthur burns was close to president nixon. finally we have a republican. so i asked him the question and he stands there like a camel chewing and finally he says i guess you'd have to say i'm an independent. anyway, get back to my hotel room, the phone is ringing off the hook and the republicans on the senate labor committee say

don't you know there was an election? i said i cleared the names in the white house and with the ranking republican jacob javits. but anyway i give them credit because all of them did a terrific even some of the people who called me and said we like your guys. jim hudson later became our ambassador of japan and the first omb and he was a brilliant president of northwestern university. so if label all these people out because they were registered democrats i wouldn't have had the confidence. i should have asked the question and done something about it. but any way if you have competent people around you, you will do much better.

team and get people who are competent. >> that leads to rule number six in the george shultz but finally give your people on your teams responsibility and reward them for exercise. >> you want to be able to say here is what we are trying to achieve. this is our objective. and in your part this is what you are supposed to be doing. and yes, you and i will work on it together but this is your responsibility. and i want to administer on the basis of no surprise that if something happens. if something happens surprisingly good, i would like to know that, too because we can learn from those things. but you've got to get people

leaderships and objectives and hold them accountable. accountability is important in an economic system more governmental system. sports is a teacher of accountability. and in my book i have pictures of sports. but american people love sports. and i think one of the reasons is the sense of accountability. there you are standing on the grain. you have the putter what, there is the ball, there is the cup. you hit the ball and when it stops rolling, the result is unambiguous, real accountability that is a picture of president ronald reagan and me and will was our referee. ronald reagan and i had the new year's eve golf game every year

and one year they showed up on the golfing team and was quite a day. they were fun. >> george shultz, and issues on my mind you write about your time as the treasury secretary. why did you resign? >> the atmosphere became rather discouraging even though i had a lot of really good experiences. one day i'm sitting in my office and the director of internal revenue the commissioner comes to see me and the same with johnnie walters. he said i just had a visit from the president's council and he hands me a list of 50 or so names of people to do a full field investigation of their tax returns. that is a very unpleasant process. they said what do i do? i said you don't do anything

>> what do i tell john dean? >> tallman your report to me one. >> it is interesting later in the nixon tapes i heard him discussing this and they basically said who does he think he is not doing what we want but they never had the nerve to put it to me because if i resigned refusing to do something improper with the internal revenue service that wouldn't be a very good story for them. but anyway, then i inherited the administration on raising price controls which i had opposed originally that wasn't in my domain. incidentally the two people running it for me were wrong rumsfeld and cheney. anyway, we were in the process of trying to get rid of them. they went against my advice and opposed them. i said well mr. president, it's your call, you're the president

but i think it's a mistake and you should get yourself a new resigned on the the policy issues. >> mr. secretary, did you have -- >> it also illustrates something in these jobs they are very who rewording and you have a chance to deal with really major things and often you can really make a difference so you tend to enjoy it but you can't love the job too much. you have to be true to yourself. i felt if i stayed under the circumstances of the decision i wouldn't be too much. >> did you have a good relationship or what kind of

relationship did you have? >> i have a very good relationship with him were. one of the first things i did as the secretary of labor was in philadelphia in the skilled construction trades there were no blacks tall if they were around who were skilled. they were working for those in the area and break them up. they have capable people but nevertheless they get more people there and let's have an objective. let's have a timetable and get

going so we are trying to manage this process. as you could imagine and was very controversial. i always knew the secretary of labor and all of a sudden i'm in this controversy and i am called to testify in the senate. somebody says you are trying to oppose the system. i said i'm trying to replace one and get rid of one. what do you mean? its zero. it's been very effective. so we went back and forth and then there was a vote in the senate. i went to the gallery to watch and the republican leader gave me a tally sheet that is reprinted in the book. we went by ten votes. it was a very bipartisan group for and against but it was very traumatic. unless the first battle and i felt bad about it because i was on the right side of the issue and incidentally one of the senators with me was ted

kennedy. we became odd good friends and had a different views on a lot of things but we got along well and that was helpful to me later when i was the secretary of state. >> are you still in touch with donald rumsfeld and with cheney? >> he was over in london i had the privilege of being at a meeting with jim baker at the american delegation and he showed up there and his wife and they were good friends. so we had a chance to see him. he was amazing. i said you are looking great. he said well i feel fine and. i had three hard years. he had a heart replacement but now he's looking and feeling great and strong to catch up with these people. >> what about secretary

rumsfeld? >> i don't see a lot of him that i'm in touch. he has a new book coming out and i wrote a little piece for it. a little back-and-forth. it's a book that he's done this nonet unknowns and all that stuff. it's a good book. interesting book. >> mr. secretary, what was your relationship with margaret thatcher? >> well, i had a really good relationship with margaret. often we argued about things and you know, she is a pretty fierce our reviewer. but she doesn't like what dogs to the people just say yes margaret, yes margaret. so we would go at it but and underlined we of thinking about things we were very similar so a lot was constructed by the already in and margaret thatcher relationship and i was glad to be part of it and i was glad to go to the funeral because i had

been close to her before i was in office and after we left office we still at times we were together. so i was glad to have a chance to go and pay my respects because i think it is a fair statement that between margaret thatcher and ronald reagan and their leadership it changed the world. the art of history was changed. >> page 245 of issues on my mind to the you wrote in my view the most striking trend now is something else. it's the growing dynamism and cooperation of like-minded nations that share an important set of positive goals. >> that's what i think the u.s. leadership we managed to do after world war ii. remember, there were some really

great statesman in the truman administration. and this was carried on to beat these people look back and they solve the two world wars. the first one settled on a radanovich vindictive terms. the second was a 70 million people were killed and untold others displaced. they saw the great depression. they saw the protection of some in the currency manipulation. they solve the holocaust. they said to themselves what a crummy world and we are part of it but we like it or not. so they set out to construct something better. they solve the soviet union and its aggressor force and the developed ideas like containment, institutional structures.

the brentonwood system of economics and the trading effort to construct and the security efforts that were made. over a period of time, each successive administration made its contributions. it was constructed in the commons and that is what i am referring to. people contributed to it and benefited from that. it was the u.s. leadership without a doubt. and i think it is fair to say that without u.s. leadership, constructive things have been handled. what does it mean that people do what we want? but it means when the u.s. is there with ideas and is an effective participant, it helps to get things moving. i have seen that personally on

many occasions. so, that has been a great achievement. i remember in the early 1980's i was in at china and had a meeting and he said now china is ready for the two openings. he said first of all the open for the movement of people within china, and opening within china. what was the second one? and opening of china to the outside world to be at and i'm lucky there is a recently cohesive world to open up to. he understood that very well. so that is what i was referring to. and that is the struggle right now that this is being torn apart in many ways to the the world as the work in change. >> how should we view of china? >> it is a big country with a lot of talented people.

it's had a remarkable economic renaissance. a very large problems to contend with. but it is a major road do we have that relationship now? >> i've been out of office for 25 years. but i was a part of the little group henry kissinger organized that has meetings, some in china and others seven or eight of us and about a year ago we were in china, and the man who's now the president come he gave a dinner

for us and spend time. we had a lot of discussion. and the next day we spent about an hour and a half with the new premier and i said you know they are giving us a message. they want to have a collaborative relationship in the united states. that doesn't mean we don't have problems. but it means that we can talk about the problems. maybe we agree to disagree on something and find ways of dealing with. i know that when i was an office my first meeting with the chinese they said they liked the idea of my counterpart in the they said you put on the table everything you want to talk about and i will put on the table everything i want to talk about. let's make an agenda out of that.

and let's agree i will come to china for once a year at least and you can come to the u.s. once a year and there are three or four meeting places where we both come to a meeting of some kind and let's set aside three hours or so just for us to work through this agenda. that served us well. we identify some opportunities and all problems some of which we couldn't deal with, but on whole. and we did a lot in the soviet union the same where he could say to me i know why you are here and you are trying to get it this way i can't have it like that. but if you do it like this may be that could work. so that's the way to do things if you can develop a reasonably

trusting relationship with the other party. so i think undoubtedly will handle big disagreements with china. right now this labor area is intense in my judgment, but the way to do it is to sit down and talk with each other, be you ever want to be the secretary of the military of defense? >> that is a tough job. i was never asked to do that and i didn't think about it very much. but i know it's a very hard job. i guess if i had been offered i would have taken it. if the president asks you to do something that you can do, i

think you have an obligation to do it. i consider myself still to be a marine so in the military forces. and as the secretary of state i had a lot of dealings with the military. i said to my counterpart one time i said according to the statute, the national security council consists of four people, the president, the vice president of the secretary of state and secretary of defense. and this is in the statute each member is entitled to military advice. he said i'm willing to talk to you. i said do you know what i'm here for? i want to talk to the guys in uniform. after that found happened i found out of the chairman of the joint chiefs likes to play and gulf and i had been a member and noble river turns down an invitation to go.

i invite him down for the weekend so we got to know each other. but it's important to have direct military advice when you are conducting diplomacy or there is something happening. >> did you have a direct line to president ronald reagan when you were the secretary of state? >> we have a system where we had two private meetings a week. obviously but i always brought in agenda to talk about. we have an understanding we wouldn't try to make a decision in those meetings because they should be argued out in the broader context. but i would go and say look here's this problem you can see on the horizon. we don't know what's going but here's the way that we are thinking about it and what we

are trying to do about it. what do you think? we would go back and forth. he was a leader at one point and he liked to talk about bargaining and negotiation. i had my experiences in the labor arena so we will swap stories back and forth and i got to have the really good understanding of how he went about things and thought about things so i thought that was important because i am representing him and people sometimes say what about your foreign policy and i say i don't have one, ronald reagan has won. my job is to help them formulate me. >> from what you have observed has the will of the secretary changed since you were there in the 80's?

>> it looks to me as though they are in the same kind of relationships that i had with president nixon or jim baker had with george bush -- i don't know exactly the reason. but i saw the other day that the adviser went to moscow to meet with putin and started arranging that relationship. if i were the secretary of state, i wouldn't tolerate that. so that's my job. and the national security adviser staff person with him, remember when colin powell got the job of the national security advisor reach he understood it and he came around to me and he said i am a member of your staff the president is my main guy but

my job is to stuff the council. so that is what got me out of kilter and in my book i had quite a lot to say about the structure of government in what is going i think in the long direction. >> secretary shultz, a couple more issues on your mind. number one, demographics. you are worried about demographics. >> i'm not worried about it, interest observant of its and the demographics have changed and are continuing to change rapidly. the countries have low fertility, rise and longevity to the they are getting to be older societies which has an impact on your outlook and capabilities. the russians have a demographic catastrophe on their hands. very low fertility. longevity is only a little better than 60.

women live 12 years longer than men of. a lot of the younger talented people are immigrating. they have huge problems in the caucasus to deal with border with china a lot of people on the one side partly have anybody on the other. so, but the demographics underlining this are devastating china has in some ways the most interesting demographics because hour and 30 years ago fertility dropped and that meant that for a quarter of a century china has had a growing labour force and a declining number of people at the labour force had to support the demographic dividend. now those courts in the population are moving up. and this situation is about

change. where suddenly you are going to have a declining labor force and a rising number, this time older people, but labor force has to support. it is a big change. meanwhile, do have a north africa and middle east country. fertility has come down some but it's still very high. and longevity is that big. so these are very young societies. and somehow, many of them have gotten organized in such a way that people don't have much to do. and the information and communication age which i talked about in the book, nowadays the people in charge do not any more have a monopoly of information or the ability to organize. that is entirely changed. so, in the mill least we see the

a spark. some one indonesia. all he wanted to do was start a business with fruits and vegetables. and the regulators wanted to get a bribe from him. they refused and squashed him. how do you expect me to make a living? i just wanted to work. it does a lot for you. you get some income for work and feel i deserve that. i did something and i got paid for it and deserve it. so, i think that in that turmoil, we are seeing in the middle east and north africa. that is going to settle down until people have something to do that's constructive. i know there are many kinds of issues that are tearing away at this but that is a fundamental and it comes when you can see it take a look at the demography to

disconnect - to that you mentioned another issue that you talk about is technology and the use of technology. >> as i was saying, i don't think people quite appreciate the depth and the meaning of the communication revolution. it's changed the process of governance. it's particularly hard on the autocratic governments that have been there for awhile. but in the space governments people are accustomed to paying attention to what people want and nevertheless, it's new and it shortens the distance between the people who are governing and the people who are being governed. it's changing because people anywhere can find basic information and they can communicate with each other on their cell phones. we are seeing that all over the

place. of course it's been prominent in the middle east, the russians have been struggling with it, the chinese struggle with it. it's a phenomenon that's very much present. >> final issue, domestic and international, the drug war. what can be done about drugs in the u.s. >> first of all we have to be willing to discuss the issue. it can't be a taboo issue. >> do you agree, are you willing to talk about it? >> i'm just listening. >> so for a long time nobody would discuss it. we had the war on drugs. and i remember in the nixon administration we were worried rightly about the damage drugs due to an individual and to our society.

so, very much of the view that we need to figure out how to deal with that problem before word. and there was the idea, and pat moynihan who was counseling the white house thought that one of the things to do would be to fix it so that drugs are just not even here. so, he had a program of denial. they were writing up to camp david and i have a presentation so i'm studying my notes and pat is in a state of euphoria and an irishman in the state of euphoria is something else to commit he says to me we had the biggest gun in boston history. we've broken the french connection. that was the problem to the it so, going back to my notes. he pulls cells of and he says as long as there is a big popular demand for drugs in this country, there will be a supply. i looked at him and i said there

is hope for you. but the effort to keep drugs out of here is a complete failure. the problem of drugs in the united states is relatively great compared to many other like-minded countries. so, we ought to at least discuss this and see what other people are doing. i think that there is a lot to be said for decriminalizing the use and small scale possession, the was possession only for your own use. if you do that, you don't get thrown in jail if you go to the treatment center and try to get some help. you also keep the jails from being full of people caught smoking marijuana or something. and they throw people in jail and all you do is make criminals out of them. that's where they learn it.

so basically even getting drugs in jail. so, we should take a different approach because it is so important to try to persuade people not to take these drugs because they are so bad for them. and it's bad for society. and you can do things. look at what the country has done with cigarettes. there are still people smoking them that much less than before because we have had a fact campaign, not just advertising but a campaign to persuade people not to smoke. i remember the days ahead of the advertisement i would walk a mile for a camel and a pretty girl saying blow some of my way with a cloud of smoke and all these kind of things. so, if you see somebody smoking you think there's something wrong with them.

don't think understand they are killing themselves? so the whole atmosphere has changed. that can happen. all kind of things can be done it. but we are spending a gigantic amounts of money on this war. and one of the results of this huge violence in other countries. and mexico for the last five or six years some 50 or 60,000 people have been killed. that is more than the war in afghanistan and iraq. so, they are huge costs. we think it's a mexican problem. >> where does the money come from the nine states, where do the guns come from? united states. so the drug lords often have better equipment and they are better organized. the new government seems to be struggling with that and we struggle with them but we have

to say that we have to do something about that. one time in the office nancy reagan had heard just say no program. she understood this. and she went to the united nations. she was invited to give a speech on the subject and i went with her. and she said very directly that solutions to the problem start right here doing something about people taking drugs. it was a beautiful statement that she made to the estimate in your book you include a letter from nancy reagan to you. >> there is also a nice picture of nancy and me at the u.n.. but at any rate, she got a lot of pressure. she meant to say what she said. just like her husband. if that's what she thought, that's what she was going to say. and she did. and the impact in the world was

just the opposite of what the drug bureaucracy thought it would be. people responded saying it is so refreshing to hear you understand that. we will work even harder with you. >> are you still in touch with her? >> i talked to her just the other day. i gave her a report on the funeral. >> two final questions. you mentioned earlier, mr. secretary, you're father -- >> i thought you said earlier that two final questions. >> those were on the issues. stat these are in general. you mentioned your father. who were apparent and where did you grow up? >> i was born in new york city, and my parents moved us to englewood new jersey which was a little bedroom community. my father worked here. and my parents were just wonderful my father grew up on a farm in indiana and somehow got himself to a university.

first member of his family ever to go to college. and he was interested in history. and he got a scholarship to columbia and got a ph.d. in history and wrote a book with a famous historian. then he was asked to start a school buy then new york stock exchange trade people to the he started at school called the new york stock exchange institute and developed them into quite a fine institution. and he would take me -- most days people were on saturday mornings and now nobody works on saturdays anymore. but he would take me in when i was a kid. and afterwards we would go to a sandwich shop to it i could taste them today with the best sandwiches. then we would go to a football game of columbia or if there was an interesting lecture or something, we would go to it. >> and he would take me to all

these things. he played catch with me and baseball and football and was a wonderful father. and my mother was just a wonderful person. she set very high standards. she wanted things to be just so she had great taste. so, i was very fortunate to have a lovely, talented, wonderful parent. i have got pictures of them all around everywhere. >> here at the hoover institution at stanford university another former secretary of state is located. your colleague, condoleezza rice. what would you think that if the secretary ran for president? >> well, she is a very capable person. and i haven't ever talked to her directly about that. but i know that she understands the political process is

different running for an office and being a political person in high office even like secretary of state. so, whether she wants to indulge in that, i don't know. but she would be a candidate. >> did you ever run for office? >> yes. when i lived in massachusetts, a little town in massachusetts, when i was on the faculty at mit, our school had only a few students per class. and the students had a program for creating a breach in the schools pivotal little towns would together and create a breach in the school and i felt that there was a good idea. and so people said well then why don't you run for the school board? so i did. and the voters turned down the school but elected me by an overwhelming margin to a nonexistent office, so i so i ran. >> for the past hour or so we have been talking with former secretary of state george

shultz, issues on my mind: strategies for the future. you are watching booktv on c-span2. >> coming up friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern booktv prime-time features wendy lauer, author of hitler's uris, german women in the nazi killing fields. at 8:20 p.m. eastern booktv's index features a three our conversation with author and war historian rick atkinson. booktv prime-time friday at 8:00 eastern c-span2. >> friday on c-span2 american history in prime-time features new york city landmarks. architectural historian barry lewis examines the history of pennsylvania rail station, grand central terminal, times square and coney island. american history tv prime-time friday at 8:00 eastern. >> more coverage of nonfiction books and the book